Gamrot/Colby/Merab fighting style doesn’t make sense in the modern MMA Scoring Criteria

[Fatback96]

The style that they all possess relies heavily on “control” and little to zero actual damage landed. Damage is what the modern MMA scoring criteria is based on, and these fighters still have a 2010-era style that shouldn’t be scoring based on the new criteria.

These fighters don’t score actual points, they just fool the judges with constant takedowns that either lead to their opponent getting right back up, or landing zero damage/submission attempts while in these control positions. The judges will still award the rounds to these guys, despite receiving heavy damage.

The judges are clearly still scoring based on old rules, that favored control time as highly as damage.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Out grappling someone isn't just control though, it's also scored as effective grappling. All strikes are also scored as well it's just damaging ones are scored more you don't understand the scoring criteria.

Maintaining an advantageous position is control advancing is effective grappling. Reread the scoring criteria.

 

[Captain Insano]

Getting taken down is damge IMO.

You never want to be on your ass bc of someone else in a fight.

 

[markys00]

Someone doesn't get 'most important' vs other types of importance. Damage isn't end all, be all

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Getting taken down is damge IMO.

You never want to be on your ass bc of someone else in a fight.

That's not correct unless the takedown had a big impact, it's scored as effective grappling though.

 

[HaulParris]

I get what you're saying, but to use Merab vs Yan as an example - the constant threat of a takedown shuts down the opponent's striking output, allowing Merab to land his own strikes, either as the opponent is scrambling to get up, or as they drop their hands biting on a fake takedown attempt. I realize fight stats are far from perfect, but in that fight, Merab outlanded Yan by a giant margin:
http://ufcstats.com/fight-details/0ccd2593c88209e4

 

[Dionysian]

No offense man but you don’t really know what you’re talking about comparing what Gamrot and Merab do to the LNP of early 2000s.

 

[Safton]

I think that kind of shows with Gamrot's resume, though. He is in a lot of close fights that people debate the outcome of. Split Decision loss to Guram in his debut because the judges felt like Guram did more verifiable and Impactful work. A lot of people felt Arman should have gotten the Decision over him for the same reasons and honestly the Turner fight was a lot closer than people give it credit for, too. I'm a fan of Gamrot, but yes he does have a style that -- at times -- lacks in regards to Impactful scoring because his top control against elite opponents is lacking unless he gasses them out first and he doesn't have a Plan B beyond "WRESTLE HARDER". However, when he's able to bring his toolkit to bear he is actually quite effective and works toward finishes pretty aggressively.

The criticism of Merab's performance over Yan was totally misplaced. Maybe earlier in his career you could make this complaint at times, but Merab 100% outstruck Yan on the feet. The constant threat of the takedowns and forcing Petr into scrambles was just icing on the cake. Colby, likewise, puts a lot of volume out in between his takedown attempts and unlike Usman he actively threatens back-takes and GnP once he has someone on the mat.

Out grappling someone isn't just control though, it's also scored as effective grappling. All strikes are also scored as well it's just damaging ones are scored more you don't understand the scoring criteria.

While I don't agree with all of the OP's premise, this also depends on how you're out-grappling them. It's a very nuanced thing that has been discussed at length in other threads, but it depends on what one does with the takedowns, how you interpret other sections of the Unified Rules when they talk about grappling and aggressive positional changes, what else is going on in said round, etc.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

I think that kind of shows with Gamrot's resume, though. He is in a lot of close fights that people debate the outcome of. Split Decision loss to Guram in his debut because the judges Guram did more verifiable and Impactful work. A lot of people felt Arman should have gotten the Decision over him for the same reasons and honestly the Turner fight was a lot closer than people give it credit for, too. I'm a fan of Gamrot, but yes he does have a style that -- at times -- lacks in regards to Impactful scoring because his top control against elite opponents is lacking unless he gasses them out first and he doesn't have a Plan B beyond "WRESTLE HARDER". However, when he's able to bring his toolkit to bear he is actually quite effective and works toward finishes pretty aggressively.

The criticism of Merab's performance over Yan was totally misplaced. Maybe earlier in his career you could make this complaint at times, but Merab 100% outstruck Yan on the feet. The constant threat of the takedowns, forcing Petr into scrambles was just icing on the cake. Colby, likewise, puts a lot of volume out in between his takedown attempts and unlike Usman he actively threatens back-takes and GnP once he has someone on the mat.



While I don't agree with all of the OP's premise, this also depends on how you're out-grappling them. It's a very nuanced thing that has been discussed at length in other threads, but it depends on what one does with the takedowns, how you interpret other sections of the Unified Rules when they talk about grappling and aggressive positional changes, what else is going on said round, etc.

Anytime you advance your position it's considered effective grappling, maintaining a position that is advantageous would be more like cage control. The problem with some people is they don't know the difference and they score effective grappling as octagon control when they shouldn't be like OP.

 

[Safton]

Anytime you advance your position it's considered effective grappling, maintaining a position that is advantageous would be more like cage control. The problem with some people is they don't know the difference and they score effective grappling as octagon control when they shouldn't be like OP.

Yes, "achieving advantageous positions" is 100% scoreable (which is why I often get into it with the anti-body triangle crowd), but the Rules also note that that you should also be looking at not only the execution but also the "effective and impactful results" of both those and takedowns. The previous edition of the Rules actually pointed out that a takedown wasn't considered "successful" for scoring purposes until the top fighter launched an attack using said takedown, but they've really pared down the scoring criteria in this latest edition. I don't know if the spirit of that ruleset is still supposed to be followed or what.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Yes, "achieving advantageous positions" is 100% scoreable (which is why I often get into it with the anti-body triangle crowd), but the Rules also note that that you should also be looking at not only the execution but also the "effective and impactful results" of both those and takedowns. The previous edition of the Rules actually pointed out that a takedown wasn't considered "successful" for scoring purposes until the top fighter launched an attack using said takedown, but they've really pared down the scoring criteria in this latest edition. I don't know if the spirit of that ruleset is still supposed to be followed or what.

I'm pretty positive the old scoring criteria also scored takedowns it's just that the takedown itself doesn't necessarily score a lot but that depends on stuff like the impact of the takedown and what position you land in after the takedown like if you land inside control that's clearly way better than Landing in guard or half guard.

I think the spirit of the rules have always been kind of the same the problem was that judges were awarding way too much to people just maintaining a position so they reworded the rules so that it's more clear not to do that. I think a good example of Judges not using the judging criteria properly even with the old rules was when Couture beat Vera by just holding him against the cage even though Vera landed more damaging strikes.

 

[HunterAcosta]

Nah bloodying someone’s nose in a round shouldn’t get you the round if guy takes you down at will and /or dry humps your leg the whole round. You should be able to get up or submit from back . If there were no rounds you’d be raped forever if you can’t work effective guard or stand up.

 

[surgeyou1]

Nah bloodying someone’s nose in a round shouldn’t get you the round if guy takes you down at will and /or dry humps your leg the whole round. You should be able to get up or submit from back . If there were no rounds you’d be raped forever if you can’t work effective guard or stand up.

Damage should always be scored more than crotch sniffing.

 

[HunterAcosta]

Damage should always be scored more than crotch sniffing.

Nah. “ damage “ is entirely subjective. Some dudes bruise , cut and swell easily Rape on ground is easy to judge and it’s taking your manhood in front of world. Don’t like a man’s crotch in face ? Get up . Otherwise it’s unwanted assault you can’t stop . Got you blocked too but gave you sympathy like to remember me by . You bore me.

 

[blaseblase]

These fighters don’t score actual points, they just fool the judges with constant takedowns that either lead to their opponent getting right back up, or landing zero damage/submission attempts while in these control positions. The judges will still award the rounds to these guys, despite receiving heavy damage.

The judges are clearly still scoring based on old rules, that favored control time as highly as damage.

Can you give any examples of this? In what fights did those fighters receive "heavy damage"? Neither Aldo nor Yan did shit to Merab. He won by shutting down their offense and dominating them.

 

[surgeyou1]

Nah. “ damage “ is entirely subjective. Some dudes bruise , cut and swell easily Rape on ground is easy to judge and it’s taking your manhood in front of world. Don’t like a man’s crotch in face ? Get up . Otherwise it’s unwanted assault you can’t stop . Got you blocked too but gave you sympathy like to remember me by . You bore me.

Rape on the ground? Someone rubbing on you landing zero strikes or not advancing position or looking for a sub shouldn't matter at all. This isn't wrestling. It's literally in the scoring criteria stupid. Damage and aggression always comes first.

 

[Stranger Come Knocking]

It's a better style than couch-fu at least.

 

[Safton]

I'm pretty positive the old scoring criteria also scored takedowns it's just that the takedown itself doesn't necessarily score a lot but that depends on stuff like the impact of the takedown and what position you land in after the takedown like if you land inside control that's clearly way better than Landing in guard or half guard.

It's not the old scoring criteria from ten years ago or whatever, it's literally the post-reform stuff that was in vogue as of 2019. The newest set of Unified Rules came out in 2022. Here's the exact wording:

"Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.” It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position. This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.

To me, the bolded section is clearly acting as a qualifier for the "successful execution of takedowns" bit by stating that a fighter isn't credited with Effective Grappling until he/she does something with the takedown, whether that's landing GnP or attempting a submission. I would assume advancing position with neither of the other two would also be an allowable form of "launched attack" to validate said takedown, but would get you a comparatively low amount of credit. That said, I have always thought that this clause doesn't really apply to high-amplitude takedowns and slams, because you are quite literally "establishing the attack" with the takedown itself. Even if you aren't able to follow up on a massive slam with GnP or a submission attempt or a great position, it should count because we have years and lots of finishes to establish that those types of techniques meet the standard for "Impact".

Now, with the 2022 edition of the Rules, they really pared it down to where it just says this:

e. Effective striking is judged by determining the impact/effect of legal strikes landed by a contestant solely based on the results of such legal strikes. Effective grappling is assessed by the successful executions and impactful/effective result(s)coming from: takedown(s), submission attempt(s), achieving an advantageous position(s) and reversal(s)...

g. Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace, place and position of the bout.

No more qualifier. Was that a deliberate exclusion on their part in an attempt to make all takedowns count at some level as Effective Grappling? Or is the spirit of the previous edition still alive and well do they feel that the "...and impactful/effective results" bit sufficiently sums up that you shouldn't really be scoring empty takedowns that the guy on top does nothing with all that highly? Of course things get even murkier if you read too much into the sections of Impact and Dominance (which are no longer locked away under the 10-8 banner) and imply that body language is scoreable and maintaining a high pace of aggressive positional changes alone can display Dominance on one fighter's behalf... but that's getting too far into the weeds and in my mind applies mostly to 10-8 or 10-7 rounds.

Personally, I rate high-amplitude takedowns, GnP, submission attempts, and positional improvements (whether on top or as a result of a reversal) as Effective Grappling. Obviously they all exist on a sliding scale and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, so no real order of hierarchy there. Takedowns that don't land the top guy in a good position and where he/she doesn't follow up are much like empty clinch control: it's just Fighting Area Control in most cases -- though some exceptions may apply, I suppose.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

It's not the old scoring criteria from ten years ago or whatever, it's literally the post-reform stuff that was in vogue as of 2019. The newest set of Unified Rules came out in 2022. Here's the exact wording:



To me, the bolded section is clearly acting as a qualifier for the "successful execution of takedowns" bit by stating that a fighter isn't credited with Effective Grappling until he/she does something with the takedown, whether that's landing GnP or attempting a submission. I would assume advancing position with neither of the other two would also be an allowable form of "launched attack" to validate said takedown, but would get you a comparatively low amount of credit. That said, I have always thought that this clause doesn't really apply to high-amplitude takedowns and slams, because you are quite literally "establishing the attack" with the takedown itself. Even if you aren't able to follow up on a massive slam with GnP or a submission attempt or a great position, it should count because we have years and lots of finishes to establish that those types of techniques meet the standard for "Impact".

Now, with the 2022 edition of the Rules, they really pared it down to where it just says this:



No more qualifier. Was that a deliberate exclusion on their part in an attempt to make all takedowns count at some level as Effective Grappling? Or is the spirit of the previous edition still alive and well do they feel that the "...and impactful/effective results" bit sufficiently sums up that you shouldn't really be scoring empty takedowns that the guy on top does nothing with all that highly? Of course things get even murkier if you read too much into the sections of Impact and Dominance (which are no longer locked away under the 10-8 banner) and imply that body language is scoreable and maintaining a high pace of aggressive positional changes alone can display Dominance on one fighter's behalf... but that's getting too far into the weeds and in my mind applies mostly to 10-8 or 10-7 rounds.

Personally, I rate high-amplitude takedowns, GnP, submission attempts, and positional improvements (whether on top or as a result of a reversal) as Effective Grappling. Obviously they all exist on a sliding scale and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, so no real order of hierarchy there. Takedowns that don't land the top guy in a good position and where he/she doesn't follow up are much like empty clinch control: it's just Fighting Area Control in most cases -- though some exceptions may apply, I suppose.

The part before what you put in bold says that takedowns score but it varies how much.

"Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.”

 

[Safton]

The part before what you put in bold says that takedowns score but it varies how much.

The Cumulative vs. Immediate Impact is referring to all possible attacks: strikes, submission attempts, etc. It is a standardized benchmark to look at when scoring a round and evaluating offense. Yet with takedowns, they felt it necessary to narrow their gaze and qualify that the only thing which counts as a "successful" takedown is something which acts as a launchpad for a subsequent attack. That is very telling to me.